EN BANC

[G.R. No. 103328. October 19, 1992.]

HON. ROY A. PADILLA, JR., In his capacity as Governor of the

Province of Camarines Norte, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, respondent.

Jose J. Lapak for petitioner.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS;

DELETION OF PHRASE "UNIT OR" IN SEC. 10, ART. X, 1987
CONSTITUTION, DOES NOT AFFECT RULING IN TAN V . COMELEC, 142
SCRA 727; REASONS. — Petitioner's contention that our ruling in Tan v.
COMELEC has been superseded with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, thus
reinstating our earlier ruling in Paredes v. COMELEC is untenable. Petitioner opines
that since Tan v. COMELEC was based on Section 3 of Article XI of the 1973
Constitution our ruling in said case is no longer applicable under Section 10 of Article
X of the 1987 Constitution, especially since the latter provision deleted the words
"unit or." We do not agree. The deletion of the phrase "unit or" in Section 10, Article
X of the 1987 Constitution from its precursor, Section 3 of Article XI of the 1973
Constitution has not affected our ruling in Tan v. COMELEC. It stands to reason that
when the law states that the plebiscite shall be conducted "in the political units
directly affected," it means that residents of the political entity who would be
economically dislocated by the separation of a portion thereof have a right to vote in
said plebiscite. Evidently, what is contemplated by the phrase "political units directly
affected," is the plurality of political units which would participate in the plebiscite.
Logically, those to be included in such political areas are the inhabitants of the 12
barangays of the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa as well as those living in
the parent Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 1
 RESOLUTION

ROMERO, J : p

Pursuant to Republic Act 7155, the Commission on Elections promulgated on

November 13, 1991, Resolution No. 2312 which reads.

"WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 7155 approved on September 6, 1991

creates the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in the Province of Camarines Norte
to be composed of Barangays Tulay-Na-Lupa, Lugui, San Antonio, Mabilo I,
Napaod, Benit, Bayan-Bayan, Matanlang, Pag-Asa, Maot, and Calabasa, all in
the Municipality of Labo, same province.

WHEREAS, under Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution 1

(1)the creation of a municipality shall be subject to approval by a majority of
votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected, and pursuant to
Section 134 of the Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337) 2
(2)said plebiscite shall be conducted by the Commission on Elections;

WHEREAS, Section 6 of said Republic Act No. 7155 provides that the
expenses in holding the plebiscite shall be taken out of the Contingent Fund
under the current fiscal year appropriations; LibLex

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as the Commission hereby

resolves to promulgated (sic) the following guidelines to govern the conduct of
said plebiscite:

1. The plebiscite shall be held on December 15, 1991, in the

areas or units affected, namely the barangays comprising the proposed
Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa and the remaining areas of the mother
Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte (Tan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
73155, July 11, 1986).

xxx xxx xxx"

In the plebiscite held on December 15, 1991 throughout the Municipality of

Labo, only 2,890 votes favored its creation while 3,439 voters voted against the
creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa. Consequently, the day after the
political exercise, the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers declared the rejection and
disapproval of the independent Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa by a majority of
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 2
 voters. 3(3)

Thus, in this special civil action of certiorari, petitioner as Governor of

Camarines Norte, seeks to set aside the plebiscite conducted on December 15, 1991
throughout the Municipality of Labo and prays that a new plebiscite be undertaken as
provided by RA 7155. It is the contention of petitioner that the plebiscite was a
complete failure and that the results obtained were invalid and illegal because the
plebiscite, as mandated by COMELEC Resolution No. 2312 should have been
conducted only in the political unit or units affected, i.e. the 12 barangays comprising
the new Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa namely Tulay-Na-Lupa, Lugui, San Antonio,
Mabilo I, Napaod, Benit, Bayan-Bayan, Matanlang, Pag-asa, Maot, and Calabasa.
Petitioner stresses that the plebiscite should not have included the remaining area of
the mother unit of the Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte. 4(4)

In support of his stand, petitioner argues that with the approval and ratification
of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article X, Section 10, the ruling set forth in Tan
v. COMELEC 5(5) relied upon by respondent COMELEC is now passé, thus
reinstating the case of Paredes v. Executive Secretary 6(6) which held that where a
local unit is to be segregated from a parent unit, only the voters of the unit to be
segregated should be included in the plebiscite. 7(7)

Accordingly, the issue in this case is whether or not respondent COMELEC

committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating Resolution No. 2312 and,
consequently, whether or not the plebiscite conducted in the areas comprising the
proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa and the remaining areas of the mother
Municipality of Labo is valid. LibLex

We rule that respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse in

promulgating Resolution No. 2312 and that the plebiscite, which rejected the creation
of the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa, is valid.

Petitioner's contention that our ruling in Tan v. COMELEC has been

superseded with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, thus reinstating our earlier
ruling in Paredes v. COMELEC is untenable. Petitioner opines that since Tan v.
COMELEC was based on Section 3 of Article XI of the 1973 Constitution 8(8) our
ruling in said case is no longer applicable under Section 10 of Article X of the 1987
Constitution, especially since the latter provision deleted the words "unit or."

We do not agree. The deletion of the phrase "unit or" in Section 10, Article X
of the 1987 Constitution from its precursor, Section 3 of Article XI of the 1973
Constitution has not affected our ruling in Tan v. COMELEC as explained by then
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 3
 CONCOM Commissioner, now my distinguished colleague, Associate Justice Hilario
Davide, during the debates in the 1986 Constitutional Commission, to wit:

Mr. Maambong: While we have already approved the deletion of "unit or," I
would like to inform the Committee that under the formulation in the
present Local Government Code, the words used are actually "political
unit or units." However, I do not know the implication of the use of
these words. Maybe there will be no substantial difference, but I just
want to inform the Committee about this.

Mr. Nolledo:Can we not adhere to the original "unit or units"? will there be no
objection on the part of the two Gentlemen from the floor?

Mr. Davide: I would object. I precisely asked for the deletion of the words "unit
or" because in the plebiscite to be conducted, it must involve all the
units affected. If it is the creation of a barangay, the municipality itself
must participate in the plebiscite because it is affected. It would mean a
loss of a territory. 9(9) (Emphasis supplied)

It stands to reason that when the law states that the plebiscite shall be
conducted "in the political units directly affected," it means that residents of the
political entity who would be economically dislocated by the separation of a portion
thereof have a right to vote in said plebiscite. Evidently, what is contemplated by the
phrase "political units directly affected," is the plurality of political units which would
participate in the plebiscite. 10(10) Logically, those to be included in such political
areas are the inhabitants of the 12 barangays of the proposed Municipality of
Tulay-Na-Lupa as well as those living in the parent Municipality of Labo, Camarines
Norte. Thus, we conclude that respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in promulgating Resolution No. 2312. LLphil

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C .J ., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,

Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Campos, Jr., JJ .,
concur.

Padilla, J ., is on leave.

Footnotes

1. Article X Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution provides: "No province, city, municipality,
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 4
 or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary substantially
altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government
code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the
political units directly affected."
2. Sec. 134 of Batas Pambansa 337 provides: "Manner of Creation — A Municipality
may be created, named, and its boundaries defined, altered or modified only by an
Act of the Batasang Pambansa, subject to the approval by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite to be held in the unit or units affected. Except as may otherwise be
provided in said Act, the plebiscite shall be conducted by the Commission on
Elections, within one hundred twenty days from the dated of its effectivity."
3. Annex C, Rollo p. 15.
4. Rollo, pp. 3-4.
5. G.R. No. 73155, July 11, 1986, 142 SCRA 727.
6. G.R. No. 55628, March 2, 1984, 128 SCRA 6.
7. Rollo, p. 36.
8. "No province, city, municipality or barrio may be created, divided, merged,
abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria
established in the local government code, and subject to the approval by a majority of
the votes cast in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected." Emphasis ours.
9. Volume 3, Record of the Constitutional Commission, p. 486.
10. Tan v. COMELEC, supra at Footnote No. 4.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 5
 Endnotes

1 (Popup - Popup)
1. Article X Sec. 10 of the 1987 Constitution provides: "No province, city, municipality,
or barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundary substantially
altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government
code and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the
political units directly affected."

2 (Popup - Popup)
2. Sec. 134 of Batas Pambansa 337 provides: "Manner of Creation — A Municipality
may be created, named, and its boundaries defined, altered or modified only by an
Act of the Batasang Pambansa, subject to the approval by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite to be held in the unit or units affected. Except as may otherwise be
provided in said Act, the plebiscite shall be conducted by the Commission on
Elections, within one hundred twenty days from the date of its effectivity."

3 (Popup - Popup)
3. Annex C, Rollo p. 15.

4 (Popup - Popup)
4. Rollo, pp. 3-4.

5 (Popup - Popup)
5. G. R. No. 73155, July 11, 1986, 142 SCRA 727.

6 (Popup - Popup)
6. G. R. No. 55628, March 2, 1984, 128 SCRA 6.

7 (Popup - Popup)
7. Rollo, p. 36.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 6
 8 (Popup - Popup)
8. "No province, city, municipality or barrio may be created, divided, merged,
abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria
established in the local government code, and subject to the approval by a majority of
the votes cast in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected." Emphasis ours.

9 (Popup - Popup)
9. Volume 3, Record of the Constitutional Commission, p. 486.

10 (Popup - Popup)
10. Tan v. COMELEC, supra at Footnote No. 4.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 Third Release 7